Judith M. v. Sisters of Charity Hospital, 93 N.Y.2d 932 (1999)
An employer is not vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for an employee’s actions that constitute a departure from the scope of employment for purely personal motives, nor is the employer liable for negligent hiring if reasonable care was exercised.
Summary
Judith M. sued Sisters of Charity Hospital, alleging she was sexually abused by a hospital orderly while an inpatient. She sought to hold the hospital vicariously liable under respondeat superior and directly liable for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the hospital, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the orderly’s actions were outside the scope of employment and the hospital exercised reasonable care in hiring, retaining, and supervising the employee, and there was no evidence of the Hospital’s management authorization, participation in, consent to or ratification of the employee’s alleged tortious conduct.
Facts
Judith M. was a patient at Sisters of Charity Hospital.
While an inpatient, she was allegedly sexually abused by a hospital orderly.
Judith M. then sued the hospital, seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
Her claims included vicarious liability under respondeat superior and direct liability for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision.
Procedural History
The Supreme Court granted the hospital’s motion for summary judgment after discovery.
The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s decision.
The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the hospital is vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the orderly’s alleged sexual abuse.
2. Whether the hospital was negligent in hiring, retaining, or supervising the orderly.
3. Whether the hospital should be liable for punitive damages.
Holding
1. No, because the orderly’s actions were a departure from his duties for solely personal motives, unrelated to the furtherance of the hospital’s business.
2. No, because the hospital acted with reasonable care in hiring, retaining, and supervising the employee, and the plaintiff failed to provide admissible evidence to the contrary.
3. No, because the plaintiff presented no evidence that the hospital’s management authorized, participated in, consented to or ratified the employee’s alleged tortious conduct.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals addressed the respondeat superior claim, stating that an employer is vicariously liable for an employee’s torts committed within the scope of employment. The court quoted Riviello v Waldron, 47 NY2d 297, 304 for the proposition that the employer may be liable when the employee acts negligently or intentionally, so long as the tortious conduct is generally foreseeable and a natural incident of the employment. However, the court cited Jones v Weigand, 134 App Div 644, 645, and Baker v Allen & Arnink Auto Renting Co., 231 NY 8, 13 noting that if an employee “for purposes of his own departs from the line of his duty so that for the time being his acts constitute an abandonment of his service, the master is not liable.” The Court reasoned that the orderly’s alleged sexual abuse was a departure from his duties for solely personal motives, unrelated to the hospital’s business. The court cited Mataxas v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 211 AD2d 762, 763 to support this determination.
Regarding the negligence claim, the Court found that the hospital demonstrated reasonable care in hiring, retaining, and supervising the employee. The plaintiff failed to provide admissible evidence to the contrary, relying instead on speculation and unsubstantiated allegations. The court cited Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562, stating that such speculation is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact.
Finally, the Court dismissed the punitive damages claim because the plaintiff presented no evidence that the hospital’s management authorized, participated in, consented to, or ratified the employee’s alleged tortious conduct. The court cited Loughry v Lincoln First Bank, 67 NY2d 369, 378, to support this conclusion.